<p>One other note - science competitions tend to disproportionately favour ‘flashy’ stuff. My friend did some very interesting independent work but the judges (predominantly old people) did not like it and she didn’t come out very well. She is publishing it, though. </p>
<p>Science Fair has definitely made me a quicker thinker and better speaker, though. It’s a great experience - just not the be all and end all. </p>
<p>Lookingforward, you haven’t addressed QM’s question at all, although the issue itself is tangential.</p>
<p>She is saying that even among top high schools, some may give an oppressive amount of homework compared to others. It’s not even that the work is more difficult, just that it requires a huge time commitment regardless of your talent level. I’m not sure whether it’s true at the specific schools mentioned, but it seems true based on what I’ve seen of IB programs.</p>
<p>For these schools, it becomes a lot more difficult to participate in ECs, or at least, to spend the same amount of time on them. To use a buzzword, I think it’s appropriate to view them “in context.” In reality, I think these schools just disadvantage their students.</p>
<p>If a high schooler or parent of a high schooler is reading this particular thread, then my advice to them would be to listen to lookingforward, who is, I believe, giving accurate advice about how to get in to a “top” school–namely the student should get off his/her “duff” (pardon me, that is really pejorative), and get out there, and do something!</p>
<p>I find this view problematic for my particular area of science, though, because it assigns so little value to the very hard work of studying to acquire the conceptual understanding that one needs in order to do something <em>worthwhile.</em> I think students who are intending to go into a fairly wide swath of such fields would benefit from harder intellectual work (and less busy-work) during high school. I also think that their future scientific fields, American society, and even global society would benefit, if they (as undergraduates) learned from the top faculty thinkers in their fields. I am not so sure that lookingforward’s philosophy accomplishes this, although it probably does produce an interesting undergraduate community of students who divide their time between study and other activities. It is perfectly sensible to choose students in other fields by the metrics proposed by lookingforward. I personally wouldn’t choose a future theoretical physicist that way. </p>
<p>With regard to the article in The New York Times: as Will Rogers used to say, I only know what I read in the newspapers. But I didn’t have the impression that the students who were described as spending long hours on homework were having trouble understanding the material or having difficulty writing papers (or whatever), which I would consider to be “struggling” with the workload. Rather, it was just the sheer volume of work that was required. I don’t doubt that there are some high schools that have absurd workloads for the top students, just extrapolating beyond the local high school.</p>
<p>@QuantMech, that’s very interesting you mentioned that article because I did go to one of those high chools. The sheer amount of homework was insane (at least 3-4 hours every night). While my physics courses in college have been more conceptually advanced (you don’t get to the good physics until well above the AP level), the humanities/social sciences have been similar to high school and the overall workload not too different, except in college you have more time. Most kids in the top of the class who got into Ivys actually had very few extracurriculars. Most of the time these were either in music, science/math team, theater, or sports. While they were more convenient to get to, they also required huge commitments that prevented students from exploring other activities.</p>
<p>I personally was so exhausted from school everyday (I am very introverted) that I only really did music and science Olympiad. I wanted to do research but I just didn’t have any more time/energy to commit to something like that. Most other kids (except very few with connections) didn’t either. I was actually very worried about this when I applied to college but it turned out okay.</p>
<p>A lot of students took summer school to take an extra AP science class. Before they made the AP and honors weighting the same this was a strategy to boost one’s GPA.</p>
<p>What’s nice about college is that research is much more accessible on you are at a large university and you can devote a lot of time to it, for me about 15 hours a well in school and 50+ hours in the summer. Eventually I became effectively a grad student. While I chose a project with my advisor, I interpreted results and worked independently, deciding which steps to take. At that point your advisor is just there to give you advice from their experience sometimes. As I figured out you eventually get to the point where you know more about your project than your advisor.</p>
<p>I feel as though I have come across the above debate pretty often, but aren’t there things like the International Physics Olympiad and whatnot for such students?</p>
<p>The University of Waterloo (the main math/physics/engineering university) runs a number of Math and Physics contests for these very purposes. </p>
<p>I sometimes think that the Oxbridge system would be good for students that are interested in just becoming scholars. My friend received a full ride external scholarship to Cambridge to study biological sciences. </p>
<p>And I’m saying, CAlum, that there are kids who tackle the work and also fill the rest of their lives. I have never been one on CC who says, oh, the poor dears. (Individual circumstances, yes. Wholesale sympathy based on assumptions, no.) Remember my familiarity is “most competitive.” You don’t get into one because an adcom says, oh, Newton has lots of homework, poor kid must have been up late doing busy work. </p>
<p>You want a better quality of students in your classes, QM. You have said that many times. How many theoretical physicists do UG institutions turn out annually? All shiny, finished and ready to hit the world? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>amen</p>
<p>Zero, lookingforward. “All shiny, finished and ready to hit the world” is not accomplished until the postdoctoral level. Research proposals from theoretical physicists that show independence from their Ph.D./post-doc mentors are expected at the faculty-hiring stage. No one is hired for a faculty position with a bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>That’s not to say that the down-stream effects of learning (as an undergrad) from scientific leaders in the field are negligible. I think it likely makes a difference.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to look at the cohort of Caltech physics grads who took beginning undergrad physics from Feynman, vs. those from the same era who had Caltech-level qualifications, but went to other schools. I don’t know how the comparison would turn out. </p>
<p>I have a very small number of really good students. It would be good to have more of them.</p>
<p>Right, so with regard to grad school, what is happening in your classes? And what is the overall quality of your institution? (In how it attracts students in general or attracts the higher quality you want to your program?) (No answer needed.)</p>
<p>I know you want better students or more top ones. But you are just one part of one university and what makes that engine turn. These are not institutions of higher physics learning alone. NOT the old Bolshoi that selected kids at 4 and made them live and breathe ballet. </p>
<p>Now, this talk is somewhat hijacking. </p>
<p>For the most part, when I write that “we” need more strong students, I mean “we,” the people, not “we,” faculty members in my department. To give an example: There is a very serious need for conceptually gifted, hard-working students to do research on solar energy conversion. This offers the best hope (in my opinion anyway) for clean, renewable energy sources. We are still quite far from solving this problem.</p>
<p>This is not theoretical physics, primarily (although there is a theoretical, condensed-matter physics component of solar energy research). </p>
<p>I think it would be to the benefit of the US to have more people working on high-energy physics, and to have more people working on issues such as quantum entanglement. (Other topics will no doubt occur to everyone.)</p>
<p>My university is not near the top of most people’s lists, but we are pretty highly funded by NSF, DOE, various DOD research funders, and NIH. A few of our top undergrads stay, but a substantial fraction go on to grad work at the top subset of the CC “top” schools, and others to other research-intensive universities.</p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean by “what is happening in my classes.” I suspect I am boring the students to tears! :)</p>
<p>Gawd, seems so many hs kids note solar- via engineering. When they aren’t talking prosthetic limbs. </p>
<p>I hear you about that, lookingforward! The two problems are rather different technically. Perhaps the people who really want to do something about solar energy should (gasp!) <em>study</em> more before starting to produce devices.</p>
<p>Not to say that an Edisonian approach might not work. But my money would be on someone who knows something about energy gaps in the solid state, electron/hole annihilation, and mobility. </p>
<p>There are many colleges and even medical schools that offer summer research internships (Stanford, UT Southwestern, UTD) for high school students. You have to apply and get accepted, and yes, you usually have to be brilliant. </p>
<p>Or, you can email a professor at your local state university (those usually have lower standards for who they want working in their labs), saying you’re interested in their research, etc etc etc, and maybe they could use your help?</p>
<p>Haha, I’ve got a lot of practical knowledge about solar. And yes, a great deal is accessible to kids who want to try their hand. Big difference between low cost efficiencies and production for 3rd world lighting/cooking (what most kids are up to) versus your end. But you know, mighty oaks from small acorns grow. I’m waiting for real solar air conditioning. </p>
<p>Point is, kids can tinker. Engineering, in general, isn’t an easier major and kids who tinker, who get an idea of the nature of the teamwork, timelines and frustrations, sure beat kids who say they get their kicks watching Discovery Channel. Active vs reactive.</p>
<p>Stemfriend, I am not sure where you got your information about the schedules of applications, but I am afraid that one can include the semi finalist status … share the finalist list through an update in January. Here is an excerpt of the January press release about the 40 finalists. Can’t we safely assume that the semi finalists are announced prior to the finalists. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No matter how you slice it, the participants do know how to forward the nominations to their main targeted audience. And that audience sits in admission officers chairs. </p>
<p>As far as dubious achievements, do I really need to restate what I wrote about paint by the numbers and adult manipulation and glorified scientific spoon feeding? </p>
<p>It’s ok, fluffy2017, lookingforward and I have both been around here a long time, and we generally disagree pleasantly (give or take). </p>
<p>lookingforward has a clear preference for <em>action.</em> If a person is interested in attending a “top” school, it’s well worth while to pay attention to that opinion. </p>
<p>I have a preference for a more contemplative, scholarly approach–in the fields where that makes sense, which perhaps is a minority of fields. The scholarly approach is hardly the same as watching the Discovery channel. Advanced math and science books are actually quite difficult to read, in my opinion; they require active intellectual investment. Of course, the effort is mostly put in while the person is sitting down, or even lying down, so it might not <em>look</em> active. Meaningful research in some areas requires that time investment prior to the research work itself–so it is unlikely that a high school student will do meaningful research in those areas (excepting people like collegealum314’s genius acquaintance).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Xiggi–Semifinalist status (STS) comes out 2 weeks before finalist–after the jan. 1 deadline of many schools and way after any EA or ED dates. Can you do an update? Sure–and you should! But it is patently ridiculous to imply manipulation and rigging to help college apps. Not to mention ISEF is held in May! Not to mention you can love learning and still enjoy science competitions. Using your athlete analogy, I suppose soccer players should never play a real game, just practice for the love of soccer…</p>
<p>Edited for typos</p>
<p>“As far as dubious achievements, do I really need to restate what I wrote about paint by the numbers and adult manipulation and glorified scientific spoon feeding?”</p>
<p>Yes you do–These are unjustifiable and cruel comments. If you have specific facts, let’s hear them. I am not naïve to think any competition run by humans is going to be pure. But using disparaging and mocking comments to generalize participants is…gross.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With respect to this debate, yes, I also personally find it admirable to be able to do math like Euler, argue like Aristotle, or write like Hemingway. But sometimes what the elite colleges need is more cowbell.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3N9OXO-MvM”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3N9OXO-MvM</a></p>